Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1401

control, N = 711

treatment, N = 691

p-value2

age

138

50.91 ± 12.56 (25 - 74)

51.44 ± 12.37 (25 - 74)

50.37 ± 12.82 (28 - 73)

0.620

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

140

0.916

f

107 (76%)

54 (76%)

53 (77%)

m

33 (24%)

17 (24%)

16 (23%)

occupation

140

0.641

day_training

2 (1.4%)

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

full_time

17 (12%)

8 (11%)

9 (13%)

homemaker

12 (8.6%)

5 (7.0%)

7 (10%)

other

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

part_time

25 (18%)

12 (17%)

13 (19%)

retired

38 (27%)

19 (27%)

19 (28%)

self_employ

7 (5.0%)

4 (5.6%)

3 (4.3%)

student

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

t_and_e

2 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

33 (24%)

20 (28%)

13 (19%)

marital

140

0.817

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

15 (11%)

10 (14%)

5 (7.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.9%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

married

39 (28%)

20 (28%)

19 (28%)

none

70 (50%)

33 (46%)

37 (54%)

seperation

3 (2.1%)

2 (2.8%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

8 (5.7%)

4 (5.6%)

4 (5.8%)

edu

140

0.249

bachelor

35 (25%)

13 (18%)

22 (32%)

diploma

26 (19%)

17 (24%)

9 (13%)

hd_ad

4 (2.9%)

3 (4.2%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

12 (8.6%)

5 (7.0%)

7 (10%)

primary

9 (6.4%)

3 (4.2%)

6 (8.7%)

secondary_1_3

16 (11%)

9 (13%)

7 (10%)

secondary_4_5

32 (23%)

19 (27%)

13 (19%)

secondary_6_7

6 (4.3%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.8%)

fam_income

140

0.981

10001_12000

6 (4.3%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.8%)

12001_14000

7 (5.0%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.8%)

14001_16000

7 (5.0%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.8%)

16001_18000

4 (2.9%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

18001_20000

6 (4.3%)

4 (5.6%)

2 (2.9%)

20001_above

27 (19%)

15 (21%)

12 (17%)

2001_4000

20 (14%)

11 (15%)

9 (13%)

4001_6000

14 (10%)

6 (8.5%)

8 (12%)

6001_8000

12 (8.6%)

7 (9.9%)

5 (7.2%)

8001_10000

10 (7.1%)

4 (5.6%)

6 (8.7%)

below_2000

27 (19%)

14 (20%)

13 (19%)

medication

140

123 (88%)

62 (87%)

61 (88%)

0.845

onset_duration

137

15.23 ± 10.25 (0 - 56)

15.87 ± 10.92 (0 - 56)

14.55 ± 9.51 (0 - 35)

0.452

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

135

35.90 ± 13.95 (10 - 65)

35.40 ± 12.70 (10 - 61)

36.42 ± 15.23 (14 - 65)

0.673

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1401

control, N = 711

treatment, N = 691

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

140

3.20 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.27 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5)

0.492

recovery_stage_b

140

17.97 ± 2.78 (8 - 24)

17.90 ± 2.93 (8 - 24)

18.04 ± 2.64 (13 - 24)

0.764

ras_confidence

140

30.03 ± 5.14 (15 - 45)

29.83 ± 4.88 (15 - 40)

30.23 ± 5.42 (18 - 45)

0.646

ras_willingness

140

11.79 ± 2.09 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.07 (5 - 15)

11.93 ± 2.12 (7 - 15)

0.455

ras_goal

140

17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)

17.14 ± 2.89 (11 - 24)

17.64 ± 3.28 (11 - 25)

0.343

ras_reliance

140

13.20 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

12.99 ± 2.81 (5 - 18)

13.42 ± 3.08 (7 - 20)

0.385

ras_domination

140

9.92 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

10.17 ± 2.32 (3 - 15)

9.67 ± 2.51 (3 - 15)

0.221

symptom

140

29.98 ± 9.37 (14 - 56)

29.93 ± 9.61 (14 - 55)

30.03 ± 9.19 (15 - 56)

0.950

slof_work

140

22.51 ± 4.78 (10 - 30)

22.85 ± 4.38 (13 - 30)

22.17 ± 5.16 (10 - 30)

0.408

slof_relationship

140

25.20 ± 6.03 (9 - 35)

24.90 ± 6.05 (9 - 35)

25.51 ± 6.05 (11 - 35)

0.555

satisfaction

140

20.58 ± 7.23 (5 - 35)

19.99 ± 6.80 (5 - 33)

21.19 ± 7.65 (5 - 35)

0.327

mhc_emotional

140

10.94 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.69 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.20 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

0.428

mhc_social

140

15.08 ± 5.61 (5 - 30)

14.75 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

15.42 ± 5.66 (5 - 29)

0.480

mhc_psychological

140

21.94 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

21.80 ± 6.11 (7 - 36)

22.09 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

0.796

resilisnce

140

16.69 ± 4.72 (6 - 30)

16.25 ± 4.20 (6 - 24)

17.13 ± 5.20 (6 - 30)

0.274

social_provision

140

13.56 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.65 (5 - 20)

14.03 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

0.060

els_value_living

140

16.96 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.59 ± 2.94 (6 - 22)

17.35 ± 3.37 (5 - 25)

0.159

els_life_fulfill

140

12.75 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

12.37 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

13.14 ± 3.59 (4 - 20)

0.182

els

140

29.71 ± 6.01 (9 - 45)

28.96 ± 5.53 (11 - 38)

30.49 ± 6.42 (9 - 45)

0.131

social_connect

140

26.46 ± 9.51 (8 - 48)

26.73 ± 9.24 (8 - 48)

26.19 ± 9.84 (8 - 48)

0.736

shs_agency

140

14.36 ± 5.17 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.77 ± 5.57 (3 - 24)

0.365

shs_pathway

140

16.06 ± 4.06 (4 - 24)

15.75 ± 3.87 (5 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.25 (4 - 24)

0.349

shs

140

30.43 ± 8.84 (7 - 48)

29.72 ± 8.27 (8 - 45)

31.16 ± 9.40 (7 - 48)

0.337

esteem

140

12.61 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.58 ± 1.68 (10 - 20)

0.808

mlq_search

140

14.84 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.70 ± 3.32 (6 - 21)

14.97 ± 3.74 (3 - 21)

0.656

mlq_presence

140

13.51 ± 4.21 (3 - 21)

13.38 ± 3.80 (4 - 21)

13.65 ± 4.63 (3 - 21)

0.704

mlq

140

28.35 ± 6.94 (6 - 42)

28.08 ± 6.26 (10 - 40)

28.62 ± 7.61 (6 - 42)

0.648

empower

140

19.29 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)

18.97 ± 4.17 (11 - 30)

19.61 ± 4.40 (6 - 30)

0.380

ismi_resistance

140

14.55 ± 2.53 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.21 (10 - 20)

14.62 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.737

ismi_discrimation

140

11.59 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

11.96 ± 3.02 (5 - 20)

11.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.165

sss_affective

140

9.92 ± 3.55 (3 - 18)

10.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 18)

9.81 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

0.719

sss_behavior

140

9.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

9.89 ± 3.85 (3 - 18)

9.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

0.480

sss_cognitive

140

8.19 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

8.24 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

8.14 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.882

sss

140

27.78 ± 10.21 (9 - 54)

28.15 ± 10.26 (9 - 54)

27.39 ± 10.22 (9 - 54)

0.660

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.27

0.138

3.00, 3.54

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.137

0.196

-0.522, 0.247

0.485

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.002

0.230

-0.453, 0.450

0.994

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.535

0.326

-0.104, 1.17

0.104

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.339

17.2, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.142

0.483

-0.805, 1.09

0.769

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.377

0.525

-1.41, 0.651

0.474

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.888

0.743

-0.567, 2.34

0.235

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.617

28.6, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.401

0.878

-1.32, 2.12

0.649

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.694

0.727

-0.732, 2.12

0.344

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.14

1.029

-0.873, 3.16

0.271

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.249

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.266

0.354

-0.429, 0.960

0.455

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.486

0.294

-1.06, 0.091

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.713

0.416

-0.103, 1.53

0.092

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.1

0.374

16.4, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.497

0.533

-0.548, 1.54

0.353

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.461

0.483

-1.41, 0.486

0.343

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.63

0.684

0.286, 2.97

0.020

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.347

12.3, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.434

0.495

-0.535, 1.40

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.335

0.393

-0.435, 1.10

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

0.556

-0.049, 2.13

0.066

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.282

9.62, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.502

0.401

-1.29, 0.284

0.213

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.321

0.408

-1.12, 0.478

0.433

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.44

0.577

0.309, 2.57

0.015

Pseudo R square

0.024

symptom

(Intercept)

29.9

1.116

27.7, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.099

1.590

-3.02, 3.22

0.950

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.365

1.062

-2.45, 1.72

0.732

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.29

1.503

-4.23, 1.66

0.395

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.566

21.7, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.671

0.807

-2.25, 0.910

0.407

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.345

0.640

-1.60, 0.910

0.592

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.742

0.905

-1.03, 2.52

0.415

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.711

23.5, 26.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.606

1.013

-1.38, 2.59

0.551

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.880

0.785

-2.42, 0.659

0.267

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.55

1.110

-0.621, 3.73

0.166

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.0

0.861

18.3, 21.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.20

1.226

-1.20, 3.61

0.328

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.555

1.033

-1.47, 2.58

0.593

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.706

1.462

-2.16, 3.57

0.631

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.450

9.81, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.513

0.641

-0.743, 1.77

0.425

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.273

0.484

-0.676, 1.22

0.575

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.083

0.685

-1.43, 1.26

0.903

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.684

13.4, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.674

0.974

-1.23, 2.58

0.490

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.644

0.840

-1.00, 2.29

0.446

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.127

1.189

-2.46, 2.20

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.794

20.2, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.284

1.131

-1.93, 2.50

0.802

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.443

0.953

-1.42, 2.31

0.644

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.238

1.348

-2.40, 2.88

0.861

Pseudo R square

0.002

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.549

15.2, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.877

0.782

-0.656, 2.41

0.264

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.107

0.688

-1.24, 1.46

0.877

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.59

0.973

-0.319, 3.50

0.107

Pseudo R square

0.034

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.342

12.4, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.916

0.487

-0.038, 1.87

0.062

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.525

0.454

-1.41, 0.364

0.251

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.735

0.642

-0.523, 1.99

0.256

Pseudo R square

0.041

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.378

15.9, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.756

0.538

-0.299, 1.81

0.162

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.244

0.467

-0.673, 1.16

0.604

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.200

0.661

-1.10, 1.50

0.763

Pseudo R square

0.019

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.401

11.6, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.779

0.571

-0.341, 1.90

0.175

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.472

0.400

-0.311, 1.26

0.242

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.060

0.566

-1.17, 1.05

0.916

Pseudo R square

0.016

els

(Intercept)

29.0

0.711

27.6, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.54

1.013

-0.451, 3.52

0.132

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.701

0.723

-0.717, 2.12

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.143

1.023

-1.86, 2.15

0.890

Pseudo R square

0.020

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.7

1.145

24.5, 29.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.544

1.631

-3.74, 2.65

0.739

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

1.170

-1.12, 3.46

0.321

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.43

1.656

-6.68, -0.189

0.042

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.611

12.8, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.796

0.871

-0.910, 2.50

0.362

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.090

0.654

-1.19, 1.37

0.891

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.816

0.925

-0.997, 2.63

0.381

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.7

0.476

14.8, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.645

0.678

-0.684, 1.97

0.343

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.231

0.508

-0.765, 1.23

0.650

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.022

0.719

-1.43, 1.39

0.976

Pseudo R square

0.007

shs

(Intercept)

29.7

1.039

27.7, 31.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.44

1.479

-1.46, 4.34

0.332

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.325

1.064

-1.76, 2.41

0.761

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.775

1.505

-2.18, 3.73

0.609

Pseudo R square

0.011

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.185

12.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.068

0.263

-0.584, 0.448

0.796

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.027

0.287

-0.535, 0.590

0.924

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.130

0.406

-0.666, 0.926

0.750

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.7

0.412

13.9, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.267

0.587

-0.883, 1.42

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.199

0.576

-0.929, 1.33

0.731

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.222

0.815

-1.82, 1.37

0.786

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.496

12.4, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.272

0.706

-1.11, 1.66

0.701

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.210

0.616

-0.998, 1.42

0.734

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.248

0.872

-1.46, 1.96

0.777

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.1

0.822

26.5, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.539

1.171

-1.76, 2.83

0.646

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.416

1.050

-1.64, 2.47

0.693

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.031

1.486

-2.88, 2.94

0.983

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.507

18.0, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.637

0.722

-0.777, 2.05

0.379

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.245

0.538

-0.810, 1.30

0.650

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.361

0.762

-1.85, 1.13

0.637

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.296

13.9, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.144

0.421

-0.682, 0.970

0.732

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.061

0.436

-0.916, 0.794

0.890

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.446

0.617

-0.764, 1.66

0.472

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.374

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.740

0.533

-1.79, 0.305

0.167

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.307

0.444

-1.18, 0.563

0.492

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.169

0.628

-1.06, 1.40

0.789

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.415

9.21, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.217

0.591

-1.38, 0.942

0.715

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.136

0.480

-0.804, 1.08

0.777

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

0.679

-2.47, 0.195

0.099

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.89

0.440

9.02, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.453

0.627

-1.68, 0.777

0.472

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.016

0.518

-1.03, 0.998

0.975

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.778

0.732

-2.21, 0.657

0.292

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.24

0.439

7.38, 9.10

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.095

0.625

-1.32, 1.13

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.686

0.525

-0.343, 1.72

0.196

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.60

0.743

-3.05, -0.139

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.200

25.8, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.764

1.709

-4.11, 2.59

0.656

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.727

1.280

-1.78, 3.24

0.572

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.32

1.811

-6.87, 0.231

0.071

Pseudo R square

0.014

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.27 (95% CI [3.00, 3.54], t(190) = 23.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.25], t(190) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.45], t(190) = -6.99e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = -1.38e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.17], t(190) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.24, 18.57], t(190) = 52.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.09], t(190) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.65], t(190) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.57, 2.34], t(190) = 1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.62, 31.04], t(190) = 48.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.12], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.12], t(190) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.16], t(190) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.66 (95% CI [11.17, 12.15], t(190) = 46.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.96], t(190) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.09], t(190) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.53], t(190) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [16.41, 17.87], t(190) = 45.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.54], t(190) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.49], t(190) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.29, 2.97], t(190) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.09, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.31, 13.67], t(190) = 37.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.40], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.10], t(190) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.13], t(190) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.62, 10.72], t(190) = 36.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.28], t(190) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.48], t(190) = -0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [0.31, 2.57], t(190) = 2.50, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.13, 1.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.93 (95% CI [27.74, 32.12], t(190) = 26.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.02, 3.22], t(190) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.72], t(190) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.66], t(190) = -0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.85 (95% CI [21.73, 23.96], t(190) = 40.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.91], t(190) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.91], t(190) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.52], t(190) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.90 (95% CI [23.51, 26.30], t(190) = 35.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.59], t(190) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.66], t(190) = -1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.73], t(190) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.99 (95% CI [18.30, 21.67], t(190) = 23.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.61], t(190) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.58], t(190) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-2.16, 3.57], t(190) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.69 (95% CI [9.81, 11.57], t(190) = 23.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.77], t(190) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.22], t(190) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.26], t(190) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.41, 16.09], t(190) = 21.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.58], t(190) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.29], t(190) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.46, 2.20], t(190) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.80 (95% CI [20.25, 23.36], t(190) = 27.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.50], t(190) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.31], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.40, 2.88], t(190) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.25 (95% CI [15.18, 17.33], t(190) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.41], t(190) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.46], t(190) = 0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.32, 3.50], t(190) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.44, 13.78], t(190) = 38.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(190) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.36], t(190) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.99], t(190) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.59 (95% CI [15.85, 17.33], t(190) = 43.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.81], t(190) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.16], t(190) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.50], t(190) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.58, 13.15], t(190) = 30.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.90], t(190) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(190) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.05], t(190) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [27.56, 30.35], t(190) = 40.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.45, 3.52], t(190) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.12], t(190) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.15], t(190) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.73 (95% CI [24.49, 28.98], t(190) = 23.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.74, 2.65], t(190) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.46], t(190) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.43, 95% CI [-6.68, -0.19], t(190) = -2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.77, 15.17], t(190) = 22.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.50], t(190) = 0.91, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.37], t(190) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.63], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.75 (95% CI [14.81, 16.68], t(190) = 33.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.97], t(190) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.23], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.39], t(190) = -0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = -5.54e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [27.68, 31.75], t(190) = 28.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.46, 4.34], t(190) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.41], t(190) = 0.30, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.18, 3.73], t(190) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.29, 13.01], t(190) = 68.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.45], t(190) = -0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(190) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.93], t(190) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.70 (95% CI [13.90, 15.51], t(190) = 35.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.42], t(190) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.33], t(190) = 0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.37], t(190) = -0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.41, 14.35], t(190) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.66], t(190) = 0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.42], t(190) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.96], t(190) = 0.28, p = 0.776; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [26.47, 29.70], t(190) = 34.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.83], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.47], t(190) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.94], t(190) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 4.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [17.98, 19.96], t(190) = 37.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.05], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.30], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.13], t(190) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.90, 15.06], t(190) = 48.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.97], t(190) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.79], t(190) = -0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.66], t(190) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.22, 12.69], t(190) = 31.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.30], t(190) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.56], t(190) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.40], t(190) = 0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.03 (95% CI [9.21, 10.84], t(190) = 24.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.94], t(190) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.08], t(190) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.19], t(190) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.02, 10.75], t(190) = 22.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.78], t(190) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.00], t(190) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.66], t(190) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.24 (95% CI [7.38, 9.10], t(190) = 18.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.13], t(190) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.72], t(190) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.05, -0.14], t(190) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.80, 30.51], t(190) = 23.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-4.11, 2.59], t(190) = -0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.24], t(190) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.32, 95% CI [-6.87, 0.23], t(190) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

616.698

626.532

-305.349

610.698

recovery_stage_a

random

6

617.354

637.023

-302.677

605.354

5.344

3

0.148

recovery_stage_b

null

3

960.387

970.221

-477.194

954.387

recovery_stage_b

random

6

964.262

983.931

-476.131

952.262

2.125

3

0.547

ras_confidence

null

3

1,174.541

1,184.375

-584.270

1,168.541

ras_confidence

random

6

1,172.790

1,192.459

-580.395

1,160.790

7.750

3

0.051

ras_willingness

null

3

816.121

825.955

-405.060

810.121

ras_willingness

random

6

817.286

836.954

-402.643

805.286

4.835

3

0.184

ras_goal

null

3

989.333

999.168

-491.667

983.333

ras_goal

random

6

986.026

1,005.695

-487.013

974.026

9.307

3

0.025

ras_reliance

null

3

951.378

961.213

-472.689

945.378

ras_reliance

random

6

943.250

962.919

-465.625

931.250

14.128

3

0.003

ras_domination

null

3

887.573

897.407

-440.786

881.573

ras_domination

random

6

885.805

905.474

-436.903

873.805

7.768

3

0.051

symptom

null

3

1,379.382

1,389.216

-686.691

1,373.382

symptom

random

6

1,382.815

1,402.483

-685.407

1,370.815

2.567

3

0.463

slof_work

null

3

1,130.139

1,139.973

-562.069

1,124.139

slof_work

random

6

1,135.018

1,154.687

-561.509

1,123.018

1.121

3

0.772

slof_relationship

null

3

1,218.710

1,228.544

-606.355

1,212.710

slof_relationship

random

6

1,221.761

1,241.430

-604.881

1,209.761

2.949

3

0.400

satisfaction

null

3

1,302.408

1,312.243

-648.204

1,296.408

satisfaction

random

6

1,305.271

1,324.939

-646.635

1,293.271

3.138

3

0.371

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,034.739

1,044.573

-514.369

1,028.739

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,039.616

1,059.284

-513.808

1,027.616

1.123

3

0.771

mhc_social

null

3

1,212.811

1,222.646

-603.406

1,206.811

mhc_social

random

6

1,217.338

1,237.007

-602.669

1,205.338

1.473

3

0.688

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,268.526

1,278.361

-631.263

1,262.526

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,273.684

1,293.353

-630.842

1,261.684

0.842

3

0.839

resilisnce

null

3

1,135.893

1,145.728

-564.947

1,129.893

resilisnce

random

6

1,133.339

1,153.007

-560.669

1,121.339

8.555

3

0.036

social_provision

null

3

954.219

964.054

-474.110

948.219

social_provision

random

6

953.222

972.891

-470.611

941.222

6.997

3

0.072

els_value_living

null

3

983.306

993.140

-488.653

977.306

els_value_living

random

6

985.696

1,005.365

-486.848

973.696

3.610

3

0.307

els_life_fulfill

null

3

984.987

994.821

-489.493

978.987

els_life_fulfill

random

6

986.587

1,006.256

-487.294

974.587

4.400

3

0.221

els

null

3

1,212.123

1,221.957

-603.061

1,206.123

els

random

6

1,213.260

1,232.929

-600.630

1,201.260

4.863

3

0.182

social_connect

null

3

1,399.809

1,409.643

-696.905

1,393.809

social_connect

random

6

1,400.432

1,420.101

-694.216

1,388.432

5.377

3

0.146

shs_agency

null

3

1,156.408

1,166.243

-575.204

1,150.408

shs_agency

random

6

1,159.101

1,178.770

-573.551

1,147.101

3.307

3

0.347

shs_pathway

null

3

1,056.258

1,066.093

-525.129

1,050.258

shs_pathway

random

6

1,060.926

1,080.594

-524.463

1,048.926

1.333

3

0.721

shs

null

3

1,358.855

1,368.690

-676.428

1,352.855

shs

random

6

1,362.416

1,382.084

-675.208

1,350.416

2.440

3

0.486

esteem

null

3

721.054

730.889

-357.527

715.054

esteem

random

6

726.711

746.380

-357.356

714.711

0.343

3

0.952

mlq_search

null

3

1,025.702

1,035.536

-509.851

1,019.702

mlq_search

random

6

1,031.424

1,051.093

-509.712

1,019.424

0.278

3

0.964

mlq_presence

null

3

1,087.285

1,097.119

-540.642

1,081.285

mlq_presence

random

6

1,092.361

1,112.030

-540.181

1,080.361

0.924

3

0.820

mlq

null

3

1,288.193

1,298.028

-641.097

1,282.193

mlq

random

6

1,293.602

1,313.271

-640.801

1,281.602

0.591

3

0.898

empower

null

3

1,079.726

1,089.560

-536.863

1,073.726

empower

random

6

1,084.823

1,104.492

-536.411

1,072.823

0.903

3

0.825

ismi_resistance

null

3

901.763

911.598

-447.882

895.763

ismi_resistance

random

6

906.542

926.211

-447.271

894.542

1.221

3

0.748

ismi_discrimation

null

3

974.086

983.920

-484.043

968.086

ismi_discrimation

random

6

977.622

997.290

-482.811

965.622

2.464

3

0.482

sss_affective

null

3

1,014.579

1,024.413

-504.290

1,008.579

sss_affective

random

6

1,015.455

1,035.123

-501.727

1,003.455

5.124

3

0.163

sss_behavior

null

3

1,037.733

1,047.567

-515.866

1,031.733

sss_behavior

random

6

1,040.286

1,059.955

-514.143

1,028.286

3.447

3

0.328

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,039.950

1,049.784

-516.975

1,033.950

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,040.662

1,060.330

-514.331

1,028.662

5.288

3

0.152

sss

null

3

1,422.495

1,432.329

-708.247

1,416.495

sss

random

6

1,423.240

1,442.909

-705.620

1,411.240

5.255

3

0.154

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

71

3.27 ± 1.16

69

3.13 ± 1.16

0.485

0.141

recovery_stage_a

2nd

28

3.27 ± 1.14

0.002

28

3.66 ± 1.14

-0.550

0.193

-0.410

recovery_stage_b

1st

71

17.90 ± 2.86

69

18.04 ± 2.86

0.769

-0.066

recovery_stage_b

2nd

28

17.52 ± 2.71

0.175

28

18.55 ± 2.72

-0.237

0.157

-0.478

ras_confidence

1st

71

29.83 ± 5.20

69

30.23 ± 5.20

0.649

-0.140

ras_confidence

2nd

28

30.52 ± 4.38

-0.243

28

32.07 ± 4.39

-0.644

0.189

-0.541

ras_willingness

1st

71

11.66 ± 2.10

69

11.93 ± 2.10

0.455

-0.230

ras_willingness

2nd

28

11.18 ± 1.77

0.421

28

12.15 ± 1.78

-0.196

0.040

-0.847

ras_goal

1st

71

17.14 ± 3.15

69

17.64 ± 3.15

0.353

-0.259

ras_goal

2nd

28

16.68 ± 2.76

0.240

28

18.80 ± 2.77

-0.607

0.005

-1.107

ras_reliance

1st

71

12.99 ± 2.93

69

13.42 ± 2.93

0.381

-0.283

ras_reliance

2nd

28

13.32 ± 2.42

-0.218

28

14.80 ± 2.43

-0.896

0.024

-0.961

ras_domination

1st

71

10.17 ± 2.37

69

9.67 ± 2.37

0.212

0.304

ras_domination

2nd

28

9.85 ± 2.19

0.195

28

10.79 ± 2.19

-0.678

0.111

-0.568

symptom

1st

71

29.93 ± 9.40

69

30.03 ± 9.40

0.950

-0.024

symptom

2nd

28

29.56 ± 7.31

0.089

28

28.38 ± 7.36

0.404

0.545

0.290

slof_work

1st

71

22.85 ± 4.77

69

22.17 ± 4.77

0.407

0.268

slof_work

2nd

28

22.50 ± 3.95

0.138

28

22.57 ± 3.97

-0.159

0.946

-0.028

slof_relationship

1st

71

24.90 ± 5.99

69

25.51 ± 5.99

0.551

-0.198

slof_relationship

2nd

28

24.02 ± 4.91

0.287

28

26.18 ± 4.94

-0.221

0.102

-0.706

satisfaction

1st

71

19.99 ± 7.25

69

21.19 ± 7.25

0.328

-0.296

satisfaction

2nd

28

20.54 ± 6.16

-0.136

28

22.45 ± 6.18

-0.310

0.249

-0.469

mhc_emotional

1st

71

10.69 ± 3.79

69

11.20 ± 3.79

0.425

-0.272

mhc_emotional

2nd

28

10.96 ± 3.08

-0.145

28

11.39 ± 3.09

-0.101

0.603

-0.228

mhc_social

1st

71

14.75 ± 5.76

69

15.42 ± 5.76

0.490

-0.203

mhc_social

2nd

28

15.39 ± 4.94

-0.194

28

15.94 ± 4.95

-0.156

0.680

-0.165

mhc_psychological

1st

71

21.80 ± 6.69

69

22.09 ± 6.69

0.802

-0.076

mhc_psychological

2nd

28

22.25 ± 5.68

-0.118

28

22.77 ± 5.70

-0.182

0.732

-0.139

resilisnce

1st

71

16.25 ± 4.63

69

17.13 ± 4.63

0.264

-0.322

resilisnce

2nd

28

16.36 ± 4.00

-0.039

28

18.83 ± 4.01

-0.624

0.022

-0.907

social_provision

1st

71

13.11 ± 2.88

69

14.03 ± 2.88

0.062

-0.507

social_provision

2nd

28

12.59 ± 2.55

0.290

28

14.24 ± 2.56

-0.116

0.017

-0.913

els_value_living

1st

71

16.59 ± 3.18

69

17.35 ± 3.18

0.162

-0.410

els_value_living

2nd

28

16.84 ± 2.74

-0.132

28

17.79 ± 2.75

-0.241

0.193

-0.518

els_life_fulfill

1st

71

12.37 ± 3.38

69

13.14 ± 3.38

0.175

-0.504

els_life_fulfill

2nd

28

12.84 ± 2.67

-0.306

28

13.56 ± 2.68

-0.267

0.316

-0.465

els

1st

71

28.96 ± 5.99

69

30.49 ± 5.99

0.132

-0.548

els

2nd

28

29.66 ± 4.77

-0.250

28

31.34 ± 4.79

-0.301

0.191

-0.599

social_connect

1st

71

26.73 ± 9.65

69

26.19 ± 9.65

0.739

0.120

social_connect

2nd

28

27.90 ± 7.69

-0.258

28

23.92 ± 7.73

0.499

0.055

0.878

shs_agency

1st

71

13.97 ± 5.15

69

14.77 ± 5.15

0.362

-0.313

shs_agency

2nd

28

14.06 ± 4.17

-0.035

28

15.67 ± 4.19

-0.356

0.151

-0.634

shs_pathway

1st

71

15.75 ± 4.01

69

16.39 ± 4.01

0.343

-0.326

shs_pathway

2nd

28

15.98 ± 3.25

-0.117

28

16.60 ± 3.26

-0.106

0.475

-0.315

shs

1st

71

29.72 ± 8.75

69

31.16 ± 8.75

0.332

-0.350

shs

2nd

28

30.04 ± 6.98

-0.079

28

32.26 ± 7.02

-0.267

0.238

-0.538

esteem

1st

71

12.65 ± 1.56

69

12.58 ± 1.56

0.796

0.058

esteem

2nd

28

12.68 ± 1.48

-0.023

28

12.74 ± 1.48

-0.134

0.876

-0.053

mlq_search

1st

71

14.70 ± 3.47

69

14.97 ± 3.47

0.650

-0.115

mlq_search

2nd

28

14.90 ± 3.15

-0.086

28

14.95 ± 3.16

0.010

0.958

-0.019

mlq_presence

1st

71

13.38 ± 4.18

69

13.65 ± 4.18

0.701

-0.112

mlq_presence

2nd

28

13.59 ± 3.60

-0.086

28

14.11 ± 3.61

-0.188

0.590

-0.214

mlq

1st

71

28.08 ± 6.93

69

28.62 ± 6.93

0.646

-0.129

mlq

2nd

28

28.50 ± 6.04

-0.100

28

29.07 ± 6.06

-0.107

0.725

-0.137

empower

1st

71

18.97 ± 4.27

69

19.61 ± 4.27

0.379

-0.304

empower

2nd

28

19.22 ± 3.45

-0.117

28

19.49 ± 3.47

0.056

0.766

-0.132

ismi_resistance

1st

71

14.48 ± 2.49

69

14.62 ± 2.49

0.732

-0.081

ismi_resistance

2nd

28

14.42 ± 2.32

0.034

28

15.01 ± 2.32

-0.217

0.342

-0.333

ismi_discrimation

1st

71

11.96 ± 3.15

69

11.22 ± 3.15

0.167

0.425

ismi_discrimation

2nd

28

11.65 ± 2.66

0.176

28

11.08 ± 2.67

0.079

0.424

0.328

sss_affective

1st

71

10.03 ± 3.50

69

9.81 ± 3.50

0.715

0.115

sss_affective

2nd

28

10.16 ± 2.92

-0.072

28

8.81 ± 2.93

0.532

0.086

0.720

sss_behavior

1st

71

9.89 ± 3.71

69

9.43 ± 3.71

0.472

0.223

sss_behavior

2nd

28

9.87 ± 3.12

0.008

28

8.64 ± 3.13

0.391

0.143

0.606

sss_cognitive

1st

71

8.24 ± 3.70

69

8.14 ± 3.70

0.880

0.046

sss_cognitive

2nd

28

8.93 ± 3.13

-0.332

28

7.24 ± 3.14

0.440

0.045

0.818

sss

1st

71

28.15 ± 10.11

69

27.39 ± 10.11

0.656

0.153

sss

2nd

28

28.88 ± 8.18

-0.146

28

24.80 ± 8.23

0.521

0.064

0.820

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(183.08) = -0.70, p = 0.485, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.25)

2st

t(182.18) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(175.18) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.10)

2st

t(176.51) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.46)

ras_confidence

1st

t(156.61) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.14)

2st

t(179.91) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.86)

ras_willingness

1st

t(156.72) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.97)

2st

t(179.80) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.91)

ras_goal

1st

t(161.32) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.55)

2st

t(176.12) = 2.87, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.58)

ras_reliance

1st

t(154.81) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.41)

2st

t(181.98) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.76)

ras_domination

1st

t(169.26) = -1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.29)

2st

t(174.57) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.09)

symptom

1st

t(149.18) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.04 to 3.24)

2st

t(189.65) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-5.05 to 2.68)

slof_work

1st

t(154.76) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.92)

2st

t(182.05) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.16)

slof_relationship

1st

t(153.83) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.61)

2st

t(183.23) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.44 to 4.76)

satisfaction

1st

t(157.45) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.62)

2st

t(179.06) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.34 to 5.16)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(152.92) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.78)

2st

t(184.47) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.06)

mhc_social

1st

t(158.61) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.60)

2st

t(178.01) = 0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.15)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(157.41) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.52)

2st

t(179.10) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.48 to 3.52)

resilisnce

1st

t(159.61) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.42)

2st

t(177.22) = 2.30, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.35 to 4.58)

social_provision

1st

t(163.04) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.88)

2st

t(175.30) = 2.42, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.30 to 3.00)

els_value_living

1st

t(158.94) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.82)

2st

t(177.74) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.40)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(150.44) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.91)

2st

t(187.96) = 1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.13)

els

1st

t(151.04) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.54)

2st

t(187.12) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.20)

social_connect

1st

t(151.20) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.77 to 2.68)

2st

t(186.90) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.04 to 0.09)

shs_agency

1st

t(152.70) = 0.91, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.52)

2st

t(184.77) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.82)

shs_pathway

1st

t(152.64) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.98)

2st

t(184.86) = 0.72, p = 0.475, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(151.27) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.48 to 4.36)

2st

t(186.79) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.47 to 5.91)

esteem

1st

t(175.48) = -0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.45)

2st

t(176.67) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.84)

mlq_search

1st

t(166.55) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.43)

2st

t(174.50) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.71)

mlq_presence

1st

t(159.21) = 0.39, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.67)

2st

t(177.53) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.42)

mlq

1st

t(160.71) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.85)

2st

t(176.47) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.62 to 3.76)

empower

1st

t(152.47) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.06)

2st

t(185.10) = 0.30, p = 0.766, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.10)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(170.83) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)

2st

t(174.86) = 0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.81)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(156.82) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.31)

2st

t(179.69) = -0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.84)

sss_affective

1st

t(155.70) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.95)

2st

t(180.92) = -1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.90 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st

t(156.46) = -0.72, p = 0.472, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.79)

2st

t(180.07) = -1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(157.31) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.14)

2st

t(179.20) = -2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.34 to -0.03)

sss

1st

t(152.60) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-4.14 to 2.61)

2st

t(184.91) = -1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-8.41 to 0.24)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(92.88) = 2.29, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(82.72) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.56)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(66.25) = 2.51, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.38 to 3.30)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(66.33) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(69.86) = 2.40, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.13)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(64.94) = 3.49, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.59 to 2.16)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(76.72) = 2.72, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.94)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(61.03) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.48)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(64.90) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.68)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(64.24) = 0.86, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.25)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(66.88) = 1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.81 to 3.33)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(63.59) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(67.75) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.20)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(66.85) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.59)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(68.52) = 2.45, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.08)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(71.26) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.12)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(68.00) = 0.94, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.38)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(61.88) = 1.03, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(62.29) = 1.16, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.30)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(62.40) = -1.93, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-4.61 to 0.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(63.44) = 1.38, p = 0.345, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.22)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(63.39) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.23)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(62.45) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.23)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(83.05) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.73)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(74.25) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(68.21) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.69)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(69.39) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.56)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(63.28) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.96)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(78.22) = 0.88, p = 0.766, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.26)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(66.41) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.75)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(65.58) = -2.07, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.96 to -0.04)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(66.14) = -1.53, p = 0.263, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.24)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(66.77) = -1.72, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(63.37) = -2.02, p = 0.096, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-5.16 to -0.02)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(93.90) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(83.44) = -0.71, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.67)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(66.52) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.15)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(66.61) = -1.64, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.10)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(70.23) = -0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.51)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(65.18) = 0.85, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(77.27) = -0.78, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.50)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(61.18) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.77)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(65.13) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.94)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(64.46) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.69)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(67.16) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.63)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(63.80) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.24)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(68.06) = 0.76, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.33)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(67.13) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(68.85) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.49)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(71.66) = -1.15, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.38)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(68.32) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(62.05) = 1.18, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(62.47) = 0.97, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.15)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(62.58) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.52)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(63.64) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.40)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(63.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.25)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(62.63) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.46)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(83.78) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.60)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(74.73) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(68.53) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.44)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(69.74) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.52)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(63.48) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.32)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(78.81) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.81)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(66.68) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.58)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(65.83) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.10)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(66.41) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(67.05) = 1.30, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.74)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(63.57) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.29)

Plot

Clinical significance